- 01.
Zafiro held that mutually antagonistic defenses are not per se prejudicial, this template frames the serious-risk showing Zafiro actually requires — a specific compromised trial right or a specific risk to reliable jury judgment (not the superseded 'compelling prejudice' phrase).
- 02.
Spillover theory: a minor participant's discrete conduct is buried under massive evidence of a conspiracy they weren't central to.
- 03.
Cross-exam preparation targets the government's argument that a limiting instruction cures the prejudice.
The controlling authority this template is built on.
Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.
- Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“[A] district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“If the joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The indictment or information may charge 2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“[A]n error involving misjoinder 'affects substantial rights' and requires reversal only if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.
Order intake.
Frequently asked questions.
What does the motion contain?
Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), prejudice-theory analysis, the lead authority's verbatim holding with source URL, attaching-precedent citations (Richardson / Gray / Zafiro / Opper), the pre-drafted motion language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework anticipating the government's preference for joint trials, circuit-specific prejudice-standard overlay, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.
Is this legal advice?
No. The template is a pre-trial litigation aid modeled on the published constitutional authority for federal severance motions. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the controlling circuit's doctrine and the facts of the case before filing.
How fast is delivery?
Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.
Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?
No. Every citation carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are Bruton v. United States 391 U.S. 123 (1968), Richardson v. Marsh 481 U.S. 200 (1987), Gray v. Maryland 523 U.S. 185 (1998), and Zafiro v. United States 506 U.S. 534 (1993). All public-domain, verified during Phase B template authorship per the no-hallucinated-legal-data rule.
Refund policy?
7-day full refund, no questions asked.